TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic charge on which the penalty was proposed to be levied by the AO and therefore the penalty proceedings itself are invalid and can not be sustained for violation of principles of natural justice. In case of CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Mrs. Piedade Perinchery [ 2017 (1) TMI 1458 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that failure to state the limb in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would render the proceedings invalid. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.7244/M/2017 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2019 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, JJ. Appellant by : Shri N.R. Porwal, A.R. Respondent by : Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, D.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re initiated in respect of disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. The penalty notice dated 10.03.2015 was issued undersection 274 read with section 271(1)(c) wherein the specific charge was not stated i.e. the notice was issued in a standard format without striking off the redundant limb in the notice. Thereafter, the penalty was also imposed finally for inaccurate particulars of income equal to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded at ₹ 2,90,177/- vide order dated 29.09.2015 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that non striking of the relevant part in the notice would not vitiate entire penalty proceedings by following the decision of Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 10.01.2017 (Bom. HC) has held that failure to state the limb in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would render the proceedings invalid. Similarly the Karnatka High court has laid the same ratio in CIT Vs SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 241 Karnataka wherein SLP dismissed as reported in (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) and CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.). We are therefore respectfully following the decisions of the Hon ble Bombay High Court as stated hereinabove set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. 7. Since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on technical issue there is no need to adjudicate the ground raised on merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
